Media Info 2018

Video Watch

Study combines literature review and stakeholder opinion on the subject

Concerns over antimicrobial

resistance in both human

and veterinary medicine

Bristol Veterinary School academics have found that, although there are some barriers to change, there is a clear awareness of the issue among the livestock sectors and a willingness to modify antimicrobial (AM) use.

Food-producing animals throughout the world are likely to receive AMs, when needed, to treat infections. There are concerns, however, that their use in human and veterinary medicine is causing antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in both humans and animals.

The Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA), led by Professor Henry Buller at the University of Exeter and Dr Kristen Reyher at the University of Bristol, investigated what is currently known about the use of AMs in food-producing animals, the practices and views of the stakeholders involved in the administration of AMs, and the availability and validity of data on AM use in practice.

Forty-eight papers – published in peer-reviewed journals between 2000 and 2016 – were identified and reviewed. Key drivers of change in AM use in food-producing animals along with barriers to change were identified, indicating the multitude of issues surrounding current knowledge of AM use and attitudes about the reduction of AM use in livestock.

The study, supported by Defra, identified a difference between – and within – countries, production types and individual farms, which showed the difficulty of the challenge involved in monitoring and regulating AM use in animal agriculture. Many factors that could influence the frequency of AMR in livestock are of concern across all sectors of the livestock industry, including inflexibility in production systems, low capacity for re-investment in farm buildings and high production costs, all of which are barriers to the reduction of AM use.

A number of positive drivers towards reduced AM use were also identified, including new methods of knowledge exchange and learning to improve awareness of responsible AM use, higher levels of on-farm biosecurity, better and wider use of diagnostics and wider use of vaccines. Evidence that farmers recognise and acknowledge the need to reduce antimicrobials was identified; although no evidence that medicines sales by veterinarians drives overuse of AMs was found.

Many factors that could influence the prevalence of AMR in livestock species – including the improper use of AMs in both the pig and cattle sectors, across all global regions – remain a concern. Prophylactic and metaphylactic use of AMs has been identified to historically be common practice across all sectors for which relevant literature was found, although this is changing in many areas of the world.

The study found there was a lack of literature about the use of AMs in poultry production, especially within the EU. The researchers suggest that work should be done to combine and publish any existing data or investigate this area of AM use further.

Levels of farmer knowledge about the prudent use of AMs varied between groups, and veterinary input, although respected, was low in some geographical locations.
The study found that economic concerns and restrictions relating to farm infrastructure or production type could limit farmers’ ability or motivation to alter AM use in their animals.

Veterinary advice, public pressures, input from other advisors and moral obligation also influence farmers’ attitudes to AM use. Similarly, veterinary prescribing habits have been shown to be influenced by similar factors to differing degrees, and veterinarians’ confidence in their own knowledge of the AMs they are prescribing also influence prescribing behaviour.

The researchers believe that increasing knowledge of how to use AMs properly as well as raising awareness of AMR and encouraging a reduction in AM use in these sectors is essential, and addressing responsible use across groups could have a greater effect than targeting one group individually.